Wuhan Killer Sneeze (thanks Tea)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
mixed_biscuits said:
And yet Sweden did that and it turned out ok.
Click to expand...
I feel I should be keeping a score of how many times you've pretended that every who gets the virus either dies or pretty soon gets back to full health.

Or of how many times you've ignored the chasmic socioeconomic and demographic differences between Sweden and the UK.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Universal lockdown is going to have little bearing on transmission in care homes and hospitals once the virus is endemic, as it was when lockdown was implemented.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
The WHO is going to come under some heavy fire in the coming months, what with the slapdash investigation into the virus' origins and stuff like this:
ivermectin suppression WHO.jpg
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
So, the WHO obscure the cause of the problem, the existence of the problem (at the start of the pandemic, before it had spread) and any solution to the problem other than the vaccines...why?
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Ivermectin has a whole section to itself on the Wikipedia page titled "COVID-19 misinformation", predictably enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Ivermectin

And India in general is pretty far gone in far-right authoritarianism, so it's hardly surprising you're repping them, just as you were with Brazil recently. The two countries accounting for about half the world's total covid death rate at the moment.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Mr. Tea said:
Ivermectin has a whole section to itself on the Wikipedia page titled "COVID-19 misinformation", predictably enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Ivermectin

And India in general is pretty far gone in far-right authoritarianism, so it's hardly surprising you're repping them, just as you were with Brazil recently. The two countries accounting for about half the world's total covid death rate at the moment.
Click to expand...
Wow, wikipedia...how about the peer-reviewed research rather than some basement-dwelling randos: https://ivmmeta.com/

Meanwhile, India's cases and deaths have been dropping.

Funnily enough, that same Wiki page includes lab origin as a conspiracy theory too...
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
mixed_biscuits said:
Funnily enough, that same Wiki page includes lab origin as a conspiracy theory too...
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, what it actually says is:

"Common conspiracy theories state that the virus was intentionally engineered, either as a bio-weapon or in order to profit from the sale of vaccines. According to the World Health Organization, intentional bio-engineering of SARS-CoV-2 has been ruled out by genomic analysis."

0/10, must try harder, see me after class
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
You're citing wikipedia citing the org that mainstream media is beginning to realise has covered up the origins of a virus that just so happened to appear right next to the world's principal lab for making things like it; get a grip of yourself @Mr. Tea
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
How does your brain square tens of positive research papers on ivermectin from the literature (and a quarter of the world using the drug) but wikipedia saying it's a conspiracy theory? @Mr. Tea Is Wikipedia more real than reality itself; have you attained peak dematerialisation?
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I have no intention of sitting here all night looking into studies on the efficacy of ivermectin. Maybe it offers some benefits - from what I've read, such benefits are quite slight, and it sounds like the doses necessary to be effective are potentially hazardous.

Your claim is that it's a miracle cure that's being deliberately suppressed to force us all to take the dreaded Bill Gates nanobot microchip killer vaccine.

And I can only laugh at your argumentum ad populum about the prevalence of the treatment. Hundreds of millions of people around the world use homeopathy. So what?
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
The argumentum ad populum is appopriate for you because you're merely a mouthpiece for [practice of your local jurisdiction]; it's not as if you're making up your own mind about any of this.

If your [local jurisdiction] used Ivermectin, you would be all for it.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Well here's a paper in the BMJ (is that peer-reviewed enough for you?), describing in some detail the various inadequacies of the websites that support this stuff as an effective treatment:

Misleading clinical evidence and systematic reviews on ivermectin for COVID-19 | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

ebm.bmj.com

Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.
Click to expand...

So your counterfactual is meaningless, because local health authorities aren't promoting ivermectin, for which there is little robust evidence of effectiveness. They're offering vaccines, for which there is abundant evidence of effectiveness.

On your part, I think you're so obsessed with the idea that anything "official" is automatically wrong that if the "official" line was "there is no evidence that sticking allium bulbs up your arse protects you from all know diseases", you'd be off to your local supermarket like a shot for some garlic and a tub of Vaseline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top